Every time we start a game where the main colored pieces are not player colors (eg Liberte, Boomtown, Goa, Phoenix, Medina), I can’t resist saying something like, “Ooh! Can I be red??” :)

I had student with Asperger’s join my game club and I would say he enjoyed playing more than any other student I have ever had in the club. Even though he is in college now he continues to buy and play games and he contacts me to find out what’s new.

What was interesting to me is how the Asperger’s manifests itself during games. He is much better at games that don’t require conflict, negotiation, or bluffing and that is clearly a result of him not being good at recognizing body language cues.  He’s also what most people would call a “rules lawyer” and he sounds quite angry when he points out a mistake but that’s just how he is, he’s not really angry. He did tend to get a little upset when I fudged rules for new players who made mistakes. I would have to explain to him that there is a differece between being nice to new players and cheating.

“I promise I’ll get to that in a bit”—Hmm… I’ve heard that from you and it was going in my direction. I’m sure I’m not the only one you’ve said this to but I’ll do my part: next time you teach me a game I’ll keep my mouth shut.

Mike, (laugh) I swear the above column wasn’t directed at you specifically! 

I’m so used to interruptions (both when I teach, or when others teach), that I couldn’t being to keep track of who has done it.

If I was to make a general observation about all the games I’ve taught, it’s that proportionately, Americans tend to interrupt rules explanations more frequently than Europeans.

I can say the reason I interrupt with obscure future topic questions (or have the urge to interrupt, as an adult I’ve learned to identify it and control it) when learning is because my mind wanders and if I don’t ask the question when it pops into my mind I’ll forget it. I know it’s rude, but if I don’t get the question answered trying to remember the question will stop me from focusing on the parts of the explanation that is currently being given.

So for games learning often rather than be labeled rude I just give up on listening to the rules (tuning out the rules explanation) and go into the game without knowing the rules and ask again for reminders during the game.

2 of my kids have the same problems. They’ll be excellent gamers one day.

Funny, I’ve explained games to what must be hundreds of people at this point, I’ve been interrupted numerous times to the detriment of the explanation, but very rarely for any of the negative reasons you list.

As for the comedian, if he’s funny, that’s great, anything to make the game explanation lighter and more fun. It is a game, after all. I’m guilty (if guilty is the right word) of this myself, and when I’m doing the explanation myself I always try to inject a little humor into game explanations, if appropriate and I can come up with something good. It helps. If a person is not actually funny and just being obnoxious, as would seem to be the case in your example, then he’s just being obnoxious. It hardly seems worth mentioning that in social situations, being obnoxious is bad.

I get plenty of questions to clarify rules. This is a perfectly reasonable and very common thing for people to do. Sometimes people do want to jump around or get information in a different order than what usual, but it’s best not to let this person drive the rules explanation (after all, they don’t know the game) and usually a “I’m coming to that in a moment ...” works fine. However, I can’t remember a single instance of this being for rules-lawyery reasons, though. If someone is going to be a rules lawyer and look for loopholes, they aren’t going to ask you explicitly about it. They’re going to nod, ask to see the rules, and then spring their “alternate interpretation”, “loophole”, or whatever in mid-game. I do get this from time to time, although it’s extremely rare for euros. As a matter of principle, if we’re playing a new game which only I know I prefer not to let other players see the rules once I’ve explained it (although I don’t mind if they ask if I can check them myself). If I’ve explained the game incorrectly, it’s still better I think and more fair for us all to play by the same rules, even if one I’ve taught is wrong (which does happen), rather than to have one player suddenly spring a corrected rule late in the game. Again, it is very rare for me to see someone seek advantage in this way, but it does happen.

Setting aside people just being obnoxious or a jerk, which is a broader, more general problem, by far the biggest issue I have in explaining rules is what I think of more as a kind of power struggle. I’ll be explaining a game, and another player experienced with the game will jump in suddenly and try to add to the explanation, derailing what (I consider) my well-laid plan to explain everything in a logical order that will make it easy to learn. My read on this is that people do it because they feel like a person explaining the rules is building a relationship with the new players which may give him or her some kind of privileged status once the competition actually begins. This may, in fact, be true. Or maybe they just feel I’m doing a lousy job. However it works out, it’s really, really annoying. From my personal experience of being interrupted in this way, I’ve learned to bite my tongue even during what I consider the most horrible rules explanations (I once saw a guy take about forty-five minutes to explain San Juan - it was at a con, so I had to bow out because I was expecting the game to be *finished* by then), just because it is so annoying and can cause so many problems.

Very nice addition, Chris.

Regarding humor, I agree, a little humor is always nice.  What I was thinking about was the the comedians who repeatedly interrupt a rules explanation with their standup routine.  One or two interruptions are usually fun.  After 5 or 6, it’s clear that they want to be the center of attention.  That’s when I clam up and wait for the group to decide how they’d like the rules explanation to progress.

Your rule, “being obnoxious is bad.” made me laugh.  I like that!

Re: “As a matter of principle, if we’re playing a new game which only I know I prefer not to let other players see the rules once I’ve explained it”

Wow!  That’s a hard line. 

I’ve made my share of mistakes, and we’ve resolved it both ways.  If someone questions something, and we can revert to the rules as written, we’ll do so.  If making this change puts someone at a disadvantage, and the change is small, we’ll just continue on the way we started playing.  (if the correction was large, and so far, I don’t thinnk we’ve had any of those, we would just restart the game).

Regarding the explanation interruption/relationship building hypothesis, I don’t compete in many tournaments, so I don’t have much experience with that angle.  I have seen that sort of interruption happening in casual gaming.  I think it’s a result of a player who’s played the game before who doesn’t like the way/pace that the explainer is explaining.

Maybe it’s because I’m usually teaching people who haven’t played the game before, but I don’t get that type of interruption much.  Though, I have been on the other end and WANTED to interrupt the way someone else is explaining.  I try to limit my jumping in to those times when an explainer is obviously struggling, or has forgotten the mechanics of a rule.

Needless to say, I really do appreciate it when I’m struggling with a rule, and someone jumps in to help me.  I’d rather people learn the correct rules and hopefully enjoy the game.

This is a very interesting topic since I am have been the rules explainer for my group for the past ten years.  I’ve taught hundreds of games and find that when I’m at conventions I do 90% of the game teaching as well.  I’d like to think that at this point I am pretty good at it.

I think the most common interruption I get is the type where the player wants to jump around and find out something “out of order”.  I almost never answer that sort of question directly, usually saying “I’ll get to that in a bit”.  One technique I often use when I am giving an explanation and the rules diverge in such a way that someone would be tempted to interrupt like this is I’ll say “so and so works like this, as I’ll explain in a bit.” or “I’ll explain so and so in a bit.” That has, I think, worked to forestall that type of interruption most of the time.

Unfortunately, the type of interruption I am most guilty of is the type where someone else is explaining a game and I jump in with a rule or comment.  I have tried to be aware of this tendency I have and curtail it, though.  Still sometimes I can’t help myself.  I’m just used to doing the explaining.

Another interesting issue is what to do when you realize you’ve messed up and gotten a rule wrong.  I usually immediately explain the rule I’ve missed or messed up to the table and we reach a quick consensus on whether to adopt the correct rule or keep on as we are playing.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen it be a problem, but sometimes there has been some whinning.  Usually we adopt the correct rule if possible, but I agree that if adopting the correct rule would really hurt a players position who relied on the rule, you ought to finish as you started.

Thanks for an interesting column and thanks to my fellow members for their comments.

--Kevin

I’d agree with all the posters above and mention the most common interruptions I usually see are people hopping in to add their bit to a rules explanation…

I have a horrible time trying to avoid this myself (particularly if I see someone wandering around with their explanation, lacking an apparent direction and flow of rules explaining...)

Up until recently I’ve been the rules explainer because I either owned the game or (in the case of longer games) had the patience to acctually read through the rules beforehand.  Now, more of my gaming circle own their own games and I have to remember I’m not the designated explainer anymore.

-------------
And on the rules clarification/exploit questions, those are some of the most important ones for me when I see a game being explained.  They tend to limit just what can be done in a game and I want to understand the extent of my options…

The ones that get me are the ones that want to “clarify” by saying it’s just like the feature in game X, then proceed to explain all the differences in that feature. 

Another method that I use with interrupters is to announce that they will finish the rules explanation and I go to get a drink. :)

Heh… but then you’d be playing right into the hands of us chronic explainers.... :)